BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1776
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 14, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 1776 (Nazarian) - As Amended: April 21, 2014
Policy Committee: Human
ServicesVote:6 - 0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill enacts the State Hearings Efficiency Act of 2014.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Allows a recipient of public social services to receive state
hearing notices electronically if he or she has opted to do
so.
2)Requires the Department of Social Services (DSS), in
consultation with the State Department of Health Care
Services, to develop a process by which recipients of public
social services may choose to receive electronic notices
relevant to a state hearing, while maintaining the due process
and privacy rights of all recipients.
3)Requires that the county representative offer the claimant a
conditional withdrawal agreeing that the county shall issue
the benefits or provide the services in question, or cancel
the overpayment or overissuance allegation and refund any
money already collected, if the county representative
determines that the county erred, the claimant is eligible for
a benefit or service, or a CalWORKs overpayment or CalFresh
benefit overissuance was invalid.
4)Prohibits the county from further pursuing an allegation of a
CalWORKs overpayment or CalFresh overissuance, or both, if the
recipient conditionally withdraws his or her hearing request
and both the recipient and the county sign an agreement.
FISCAL EFFECT
AB 1776
Page 2
1)One-time costs of approximately $3 million ($1 million GF) for
the automation costs associated with the required changes.
2)Potential unknown savings, likely several hundred thousand
dollars per year, on-going for efficiencies resulting in state
fewer hearings.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . This bill seeks to reduce the cost of state hearings
related to public social services benefits and services
through authorizing electronic communications of hearing
information and documents, when requested by a claimant, and
requiring that conditional withdrawals of state hearings for
certain benefits and services constitute a final action once
the terms of a conditional withdrawal are fulfilled. The
author asserts, this bill will help improve and streamline the
state hearing process. Electronic communication will allow
state hearings to be more efficient by providing an additional
means of communication. Additionally, this bill would prevent
money and time spent on multiple adjudications of hearings
that deal with CalWORKs overpayments and CalFresh
overissuances.
2)Overpayments and overissuance . Under current law,
overpayments of CalWORKs aid due to administrative errors made
by a county agency are required to be collected through a 5%
reduction in the family's maximum aid payment every month
until the full amount of the overpayment is recouped. In
cases of a CalFresh overissuance, a household's benefit is
reduced by either 5% of the benefit amount or $10, whichever
is greater, until the full amount is recouped by the county.
3)State hearings. State regulations spell out the basic
benefits and services provided to low-income individuals and
families that fit within the public social services programs
for which a state hearing can be requested. These include
CalWORKs and CalFresh and many others.
Under current law, an applicant or recipient of public social
services can request a state hearing to contest an action
taken by the county that the applicant or recipient believes
is unjust or inappropriate, such as a recipient's denial of
benefits, aid, or services, or an applicant's denial of
program eligibility. Current law and regulations set forth
AB 1776
Page 3
timeframes for requesting a state hearing and adjudication of
the complaint, in addition to county requirements to send
notices pertaining to the hearing, all of which are currently
sent through the mail. According to DSS, each state hearing
costs about $1,025.
4)Conditional withdrawals . Before a state hearing takes place,
or before a final decision is made, the hearing request can be
unconditionally or conditionally withdrawn by the claimant.
An unconditional withdrawal requires the hearing to be
dismissed without prejudice, which allows the claimant to file
an identical hearing request for the same issue, provided that
the request is within the allotted timeframe for filing a
complaint.
Conversely, a conditional withdrawal requires the claimant and
the county to sign an agreement that includes the actions to
be taken by both parties within 30 days of the conditional
withdrawal form being signed and submitted to the county.
After a conditional withdrawal form is signed, if a claimant
does not reinstate the hearing request within the allotted
timeframe, the original hearing request is dismissed. A
conditional withdrawal can also be initiated by the county,
and is considered in state regulations to be appropriate when,
upon reviewing the action taken by the county, a county
representative concludes that the action was incorrect.
5)Prior Legislation . AB 320 (Wright), 2012 contained provisions
related to conditional withdrawals, and would have clarified
and streamlined the scheduling and location of state hearings.
This bill was held on this committee's Suspense File.
Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081